When it comes to understanding what the alt-left is doing politically, Laura Ingraham gets it better than most

[BluesLegend]

It's why I find it odd how intelligent guys like Tucker Carlson almost dare and/or goad the president to step in.

Fine, Trump should call for UN peace keeping forces to be deployed in...Chicago.

 

[Billiejeens]

Our astute Pres.Trump is playing it smart by letting the mayor's and governor's handle the situation in their cities and states. That way the public can see how pathetic the feckless leadership is in these Democrat ran hell holes. ...

Agreed
The mayor of Seattle expected the President to send troops in and then take the fall.
As usual he is playing chess and she is playing checkers.
Now she has the deaths on her hands and is scrambling to extricate herself form the mess, that she made.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's why I find it odd how intelligent guys like Tucker Carlson almost dare and/or goad the president to step in.

Fine, Trump should call for UN peace keeping forces to be deployed in...Chicago.

Chicago doesn't need any help. They are tough on gun ownership and carrying. That's why they had 106 people shot last weekend, resulting in at least 10 deaths so far, and a 3 year old child injured.

 

[Coyote]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

 

[Billiejeens]

If the Democrats are so well funded and well organized, then WHY are they turning their BHAZ spots into "hellholes?"

BTW - Ingraham had no proof of anything just her OPINIONS which mean nothing, prove nothing and show nothing.
You played right into her conspiracy fantasies and listening to "entertainers" like her, means you will NEVER understand what is really going on.

View attachment 353850

Your thoughts go against all the facts.
Why do you think that?

 

[Coyote]

Our astute Pres.Trump is playing it smart by letting the mayor's and governor's handle the situation in their cities and states. That way the public can see how pathetic the feckless leadership is in these Democrat ran hell holes. ...

Agreed
The mayor of Seattle expected the President to send troops in and then take the fall.
As usual he is playing chess and she is playing checkers.
Now she has the deaths on her hands and is scrambling to extricate herself form the mess, that she made.

The only chess Trump plays is zero dimensional.

 

[BluesLegend]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

 

[Billiejeens]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Her resume is certainly not one of an "entertainer" although her reporting is usually presented in an entertaining manner.
Why do you think that she is an entertainer?

 

[Billiejeens]

Thanks for proving she KNOWS how to bias her speeches and KNOWS who is paying her salary.
She OBVIOUSLY has no interest in being factual or unbiased.

Where did you think that was proven?

 

[Billiejeens]

If the Democrats are so well funded and well organized, then WHY are they turning their BHAZ spots into "hellholes?"

BTW - Ingraham had no proof of anything just her OPINIONS which mean nothing, prove nothing and show nothing.
You played right into her conspiracy fantasies and listening to "entertainers" like her, means you will NEVER understand what is really going on.

View attachment 353850

If you can explain what these protesters in Washington want, go ahead, your guess is as good as any. Fox News have reporters on the ground, they are getting information.

As I said, they break of CHAZ. The big donors are probably pissed that Trump didn't take the bait and attack the well funded mob in Seattle, so, they say "let's go right to his door and MAKE him act!"

They do it on federal land for what purpose? They want the videos and representation that Trump is a tyrant. They want to compare him to some 1960's strong armed leaders and police. He simply has to let the security do their job, he need not lift a finger.

As I said, this paints them worse, not Trump. More than that though, it's not as if Trump doesnt care, it's that he has to let them operate their jurisdictions, he can't be master of all things.

The goal or primary objective of BLM/Antifa domestic terrorists is to serve as a vanguard party; the tip of the spear of a new political movement whose ultimate goal is revolution, to include regime change, governmental change, drastic cultural and social change. The Bolsheviks were perhaps the first to utilize vanguard parties during their 1917 revolution. Perhaps in the beginning BLM/Antifa were simply paid to protest and intimidate. But now these groups have been pushed into the vanguard party role, which is essentially guerilla force in nature, with terrorist tactics 101 their primary playbook.

In some ways this radical left mirrors radical Islam.

Radical Islam has the desire to create a world wide Islamic Caliphate through force.
Radical left has the desire to create a worldwide Socialist "Caliphate" though force.

 

[Billiejeens]

I've been to two protests. I missed where the money has been handed out both times.

Probably

 

[Billiejeens]

And the conspiracies FLY!

FLY Conspiracies, FLY!

GOP has set you FREE!

View attachment 353876

You do understand that conspiracy simply means that more than one person knows about it, yes?

 

[2aguy]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Her resume is certainly not one of an "entertainer" although her reporting is usually presented in an entertaining manner.
Why do you think that she is an entertainer?

Because she is a conservative woman..........the left wing democrats can pile any amount of hate on conservative women without repercussions....

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

She knows what is going on. These are all very well funded and organized protests and it is totally political. I suggest Trump play this smart, talk to intelligent people who understand the politics of all these protests. These groups have an agenda, and it is to hurt Trump in 2020.

Let THEM be the bad guys. Winning in 2020 is far more important than playing into their hands. Hold those to account whoever who is funding this. If they attack churches, or other places of worship, arrest and charge with hate crimes, go after their funding sources.

As my dad used to say when I was a kid regarding fighting: "they start it, you finish it". Do it methodically and with calculation, because you can be sure as hell that they are.

After a 2020 victory, THEN you go after these Marxist SOB's and their benefactors.

"Alt left" is a republican boogyman with no real existence, like antifa. You guys just needed to "get even" for being labeled alt-right.

Antifa is real and tried to intimidate me from going into restaurant a while back.

 

[Billiejeens]

It's why I find it odd how intelligent guys like Tucker Carlson almost dare and/or goad the president to step in.

Fine, Trump should call for UN peace keeping forces to be deployed in...Chicago.

If you have ever seen the blue helmeted UN peacekeepers in action -
Well they wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[Billiejeens]

If the Democrats are so well funded and well organized, then WHY are they turning their BHAZ spots into "hellholes?"

BTW - Ingraham had no proof of anything just her OPINIONS which mean nothing, prove nothing and show nothing.
You played right into her conspiracy fantasies and listening to "entertainers" like her, means you will NEVER understand what is really going on.

View attachment 353850

If you can explain what these protesters in Washington want, go ahead, your guess is as good as any. Fox News have reporters on the ground, they are getting information.

As I said, they break of CHAZ. The big donors are probably pissed that Trump didn't take the bait and attack the well funded mob in Seattle, so, they say "let's go right to his door and MAKE him act!"

They do it on federal land for what purpose? They want the videos and representation that Trump is a tyrant. They want to compare him to some 1960's strong armed leaders and police. He simply has to let the security do their job, he need not lift a finger.

As I said, this paints them worse, not Trump. More than that though, it's not as if Trump doesnt care, it's that he has to let them operate their jurisdictions, he can't be master of all things.

Trump is the big loser in all of this, Voters are seeing Trump for what he is. A thug. People are seeing the real Donald Trump and are rejecting him.

Yes....Trump is the thug....

The democrat party is burning, looting and killing people for last 3 weeks using their terrorist groups antifa and black lives matter...

But Trump is the thug.......

You guys are really vile....

It isn't as if any truth that they say is going to help them.

 

[Coyote]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

 

[2aguy]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

90% of support for background checks is debunked...you moron....Actual votes on the topic show it isn't true...

UPDATE: Michael Bloomberg put initiatives on the November 2016 ballots in Maine and Nevada to mandate background checks on the private transfer of guns. In Maine, the initiative lost by four percentage points despite Bloomberg outspending the opponents by a 6-to-1 margin. In Nevada, the initiative eeked out a 0.8 percentage point win, but because it didn’t include any funding, which was excluded to help it pass, the initiative never went into effect. Bloomberg outspent the initiative’s opponents by 3-to-1. An earlier initiative in Washington State passed more handily by a 59-to-41 percent margin, but supporters outspent opponents by a 50-to-1 margin.

Despite truly massive spending by gun control advocates to support these initiatives, none of them have come within 20 percentage points of the most conservative claims about polls for universal background checks.

Original Post (December 24, 2013): Earlier this year Nate Silver assured people that there were solid polls showing “Overwhelming majorities of 80 to 90 percent of the public say they favor background checks.” See also here. On Monday, soon to be former Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Shannon Watts (with Moms Demand Action) repeated the claim and make the related point that even among NRA members “74 percent support background checks for all gun sales” (this last poll number was paid for by Bloomberg). Indeed the notion that the NRA isn’t representing members of the NRA has become a common claim made by gun control organizations. But there were a couple major problems with these poll numbers: 1) People were really just being asked about whether they wanted to keep criminals from getting guns, not about a particular piece of legislation. 2) The surveys asked a vague question with no information on how the current system works.

Polls about specific proposals produce dramatically lower levels of support.

There was a poll in April by the PEW Research Center that gets at the first issue and I think is much more accurate. It asks people whether they are happy that the Senate gun control bill was stopped in April. Apparently, both Republicans and Independents are generally happy that it was stopped by 51-to-34 and 48-to-41 margins. My guess is that Republican Senators are paying a lot more attention to what Independents and Republicans wanted than Democrats who would never have voted for the Republicans anyway. It looks to me that Republicans voted the way that their constituents wanted. So Republicans shouldn’t really care that among all voters the poll showed support of 47 to 39 percent. If you want to explain why Republican Senators voted against the measure, you should look at the results by political affiliation.

Remember those claims that 80 to 90% of Americans wanted expanded background checks?: Well, no so much support for specific bills - Crime Prevention Research Center

UPDATE January 27, 2014: In a new national ad, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords again implies that since 90% of Americans support background checks that means that they will support the legislation that she is pushing.

crimeresearch.org

 

[2aguy]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

The 90% support for background checks is a lie. The poll questions asked of the people responding to the poll are intentionally made to lie to the people....

they do not explain what Background Checks actually mean...so the people aren't responding to Background Checks, they are simply responding to words that sound good......

When you go on to explain exactly what people like you mean by Background Checks you will not get 90% support for the....which is the whole point in lying about them through poll questions.

 

[2aguy]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

And more on the lie about Background checks...you still can't explain what background checks will do to actually stop criminals from getting guns.......since they avoid them by using straw buyers, who can pass any background check...or steal their guns...those are two things the poll questions don't tell the people responding to the polls....which is another reason the 90% number is a lie.

Other surveys from this year find that few Americans actually think that neither background checks nor gun control generally would be beneficial. In April, a Rasmussen survey found: “Only 41% believe more background checks will reduce gun violence.” In December, a Reason-Rupe poll found that by a 63 to 32 percent margin Americans don’t believe that tighter gun control “would not be effective in preventing criminals from obtaining guns.

Remember those claims that 80 to 90% of Americans wanted expanded background checks?: Well, no so much support for specific bills - Crime Prevention Research Center

UPDATE January 27, 2014: In a new national ad, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords again implies that since 90% of Americans support background checks that means that they will support the legislation that she is pushing.

crimeresearch.org